Saturday, April 10, 2010
Tuesday, April 06, 2010
Continued from Part 4
41.) Because I don’t know what an atavism is and if you told me, I still wouldn't believe it. Too weird.
Thank God for Google http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+atavism&btnG=Search&meta=
He is even to be praised for Bing
It’d be convincing if only Evolution could explain the appearance of entirely new biological information.
42.) Because I don’t know that evolution explains methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and also provides the answer in preventing it from turning into a superbug and killing massive numbers of people.
The author substitutes the definition of Natural Selection for Evolution again here. Mutations that reduce information in life forms do not explain how new information is formed. http://creation.com/mutations-questions-and-answers
43.) Because I don’t know that evolution is routinely used in medicine to diagnose and treat certain illnesses such as genetic ailments, bacterial infections, and viral infections.
Still confusing Natural Selection with Evolution, and I’m reasonably sure that there is no medical procedure which uses evolution to treat illness or disease. People complain about wait times now, can you imagine if they had to wait for millions of years?
44.) Because I believe there is a strong comparison between designed inanimate objects such as buildings, paintings, and watches (which we know were pieced together from identifiable components by human beings) and living organisms (which reproduce with genetic variation under the effects of environmental attrition).
How do we recognize design? Is it some dubious survival mechanism to do so as the author suggests in reason #14? When we unearth a pyramid out of the ground we don’t for a moment consider that it was formed by natural processes. The only thing we know the natural processes have done to it is damage it.
Likewise, we don’t sit a first time user at a computer and tell them to type until they manage to design an operating system like Max OS X, or Windows 7, or perhaps even Linux.
When we look at the information required for life to “work” it is much more complex and interdependent than that in a pyramid or a operating system. Do you think the OS on your computer just happened?
The author makes an incomplete argument against design proving a Designer. For more information please visit; http://creation.com/design-features-questions-and-answers
The vast difference between the physical objects we all agree do not happen by random natural processes and life is that life is incomparably more complex. There is no known random natural process which could make a pyramid form in the desert, just like there is no known random natural process that could form a human using the information in an Ape-like creature.
45.) Because I see no significant similarities between humans and apes. *scratches my ********* then smells my fingers*
This is not a Creationist argument. Companies spend large sums of money on ensuring their brands are recognizable. Have you ever said, “That looks like a Ford” before? There’s a reason. Similarity in design shows that the Designer chose to have similarity in design. It does not show decent.
No right thinking person thinks that the 2008 Ford Focus evolved into the 2010 Ford Focus through natural processes. A team of people used intelligence and effort to design a new car which had similar design features. Even if we buried the cars in the ground for 4.5 million years it wouldn’t change that while they look somewhat similar one did not come from the other.
46.) Because I think I’m too special to have been crafted by any natural process and the entire planet, solar system, galaxy, and universe were created with me especially in mind.
Given that there are no natural processes known at the present which could possibly have “crafted” (logical fallacy of reification) me, I do consider myself too “special” to have been “crafted” by them. Biblical Creationists know that the planet, solar system, galaxy, and universe were created especially with God’s glory in mind. Psa 19
47.) Because I unquestioningly swallow the ignorant anti-science bullshit spewed directly from the fraudulent stupid ***** of people like Ken Ham, Ted Haggard, Fred Phelps, and Kent Hovind.
Logical Fallacy of Ad Hominem. Also hypocrisy, as the author is sarcastically suggesting that the readers should accept the Evolutionary Worldview though no scientific evidence is presented to support the theory.
48.) Because I’m a freethinker and freethinking really means ignoring anything that contradicts what I already believe.
Actually Biblical Creationist have repented.
49.) Because I don’t know what confirmation bias is.
I am rubber you are glue…. Logical Fallacy of Ad Hominem again, seasoned with obvious hypocrisy.
50.) Because despite the fact that in all my years of life, I have never seen any magic, I still believe magic is the answer to anything I don’t immediately comprehend.
Absolutely nothing exploded, spewed out everything, which eventually evolved into me! Simply magic!!
Ladies and gentlemen, I rest my case. Quod erat demonstrandum, I ******* win. Take that you EVILutionists!
~By Bobbie Jean Pentecost
Thank you for your demonstration Ms Pentecost. It has been most entertaining, if unconvincing.
Well that's it. I spent way too much time responding to this article because too many people are intimidated by such foolishness.
31.) Because I’m too stupid to realize that Social Darwinism has nothing to do with evolution and is actually a pseudo-scientific bastardization that real science largely rejects.
Logical Fallacy of Reification. Actually Social Darwinism is completely consistent with the Evolutionary Worldview. As is murder, theft…….. people rightly get upset when someone claiming to be a Christian is caught in some horrible sin because the person is a hypocrite. However, when someone who holds to the Evolutionary Worldview does these things they can not be said to be a hypocrite.
Here’s what Jeffrey Dahmer had to say on the subject.
‘If a person doesn’t think there is a God to be accountable to, then—then what’s the point of trying to modify your behaviour to keep it within acceptable ranges? That’s how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime. When we, when we died, you know, that was it, there is nothing…’
Jeffrey Dahmer, in an interview with Stone Phillips, Dateline NBC, Nov. 29, 1994.
32.) Because the planet and all the life on it was designed for humans… kinda like how the Metropolitan Museum of Art in NY was designed specifically for the dust-bunnies that may accumulate on the floors.
“Dust-bunnies” can exist in a multitude of environments. Life has a comparatively very narrow range of environments which it can exist in. Dust-bunnies, minus the organically produced portions, could theoretically exist throughout the universe.
The author is referring to the Anthropic Principle. Check out item 93 on this page for more information on this principle. http://creation.com/astronomy-and-the-bible
33.) Because I don’t realize that if we actually found croco-ducks in the fossil record, it would falsify evolution.
At 33 reasons in I finally read something I’ve never heard before. I’m not sure why showing that there is gradual change from one life form to another would falsify a theory which says that life forms gradually change from one to another. I’m sure the author is being clever here, even if it is beyond my understanding. ;)
34.) Because plenty of respect able people like Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, and Mike Huckabee (who are not scientists) don’t accept evolution, and that somehow validates my opinion.
Logical Fallacy of Ad Hominem, not to mention hypocrisy; see reasons #1,2, 4 for examples of the author agreeing with Evolution because respected people say it is true.
35.) Because my mother didn’t know not to drink while she was pregnant. She also didn’t know not to repeatedly throw herself down a flight of stairs in an attempt to undo the accident of screwing someone who voted for Bush both times.
Logical Fallacy of Ad Hominem.
36.) Because I don’t know that “irreducible complexity” has been debunked a frazillion times by a frazillion different people and is no more credible an argument than “NEEN-er NEEN-er NEEN-er, I’m right and you’re wrong.”
I didn’t know that irreducible complexity had been “debunked.” I know it’s been it’s been sidestepped by those who are sure there’s an explanation for it that doesn’t involve God. http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-2-chapter-10-argument-irreducible-complexity
37.) Because I have never seen a duck evolve into a cat over night, despite the fact that such a thing would be contrary to all known scientific disciplines.
It’s true that a Duck evolving into a Cat, over night or over any amount of time, would violate all known scientific laws. This is just the same argument about time again. I remind the reader that it doesn’t matter how much time you give a broken toaster, it’s not going to make toast for you.
38.) Because I have no imagination, learning is too much effort, I don’t like proven facts, change scares me, and I think deoxyribonucleic acid is something I’m supposed to clean my bathroom floors with.
Using the full name of DNA might make someone sound intelligent, but to suppose that sounding intelligent makes an argument correct is to simply commit the fallacy of ad hominem again. I don’t have enough imagination to believe that absolutely nothing exploded, spewed out everything, which eventually evolved into me.
39.) Because evolution means that I absolutely MUST reject everything else I know, abandon all my beliefs, and start aping around my house like a ******* monkey. OOOh-ooohh-ooohohh -OOOOOOHHHHHH!!!!!
If the author is referring to giving up on the God of the Bible, then yes one would have to give up on Him. For if Evolution is true, then He is not. The two are not compatible, no matter how ignorant the author is of this fact. http://creation.com/10-dangers-of-theistic-evolution
40.) Because I haven’t put my cave on the market and moved into the 21st century yet. I’m waiting for the cave market to rebound from the recent financial meltdown.
What was true when people lived in caves (they still do in places like Afghanistan) is still true today. People simply have more sophisticated ways to quiet their conscience. Romans 1
Continued from Part 2
That nothing exploded and became everything is infinitely less believable than our Creator creating the Universe, yes I agree. I have not forgotten that the author ignorantly separated Evolution from the self-creation of the Universe earlier in his 6th reason.
Of course there is no evidence for the Flood that can be seen with your hands over your eyes. However, if you take a quick peek there may well be some to be seen. http://creation.com/noahs-flood-questions-and-answers
The author’s claim of the Bible saying that an old man crammed two of every species into a giant wooden boat is incorrect. For the actual information visit http://creation.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter13.pdf
God put the animals in, gave warning, and closed the door leaving all those who did not heed that warning outside the protection He provided and covered in His wrath. This is a shadow of today. The warning is clear, repent sinner to put your faith in Christ, or be left outside of Him to suffer the full wrath of God on your own.
24.) Because Jesus totally rode around on a ******* t-rex. He’s just that badassed. And also, did you know that t-rexes were vegetarians? Ken Ham says so and I believe it.
These are interesting reasons, there can be no doubt. However the first is not something any Creationist would say, and the second is only part of what Ken Ham states. Much like bicycles were designed to ride on two wheels didn’t stop people from riding them on a single wheel, that God designed every animal to be vegetarian doesn’t mean they couldn’t eat otherwise. When God cursed the world because of man’s own disobedience He loosened the controls on all living things. Death entered the world by God’s curse because of sin. Are you good enough to make God a liar? Or does your own life testify to your guilt? Check out Exo 20 and see how you’re doing with being such a good person.
25.) Because I don’t realize that saying “microevolution is possible but macroevolution isn’t” is as stupid as saying “I can pick my nose for one second but I cannot pick it for 10 seconds.”
Microevolution is Natural Selection, the de-selection of less favourable traits in animals by death resulting in less and less information in a population’s gene pool. Since the longer it goes on the less information there is it can not produce the increase in information required for Macroevolution. There is no known natural mechanism which increases the information in living things. For more information on Natural Selection/Microevolution visit http://creation.com/natural-selection-questions-and-answers
26.) Because the education system failed me miserably.
27.) …and then took a big *** **** on my face.
Logical Fallacy of Reification.
28.) Because I think that knowing how nature works magically obliterates all of its beauty.
Does the author think she knows how Nature works? Is there anything we know about Nature that Creationists claim has “obliterated” (or in anyway diminished) the beauty we see in the natural world?
29.) Because I didn’t know that evolution has been tested and observed in laboratories.
I didn’t know this either. Neither does Dr. Richard Dawkins, the foremost proponent of the Evolutionary Worldview. He said ‘Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening.’ Now, 3 December 2004, PBS Network http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript349_full.html
Here’s some information about mutations, which without a doubt the author is referring to here as having been tested and observed. http://creation.com/mutations-questions-and-answers
30.) Because when confronted with that, I refuse to believe it. It’s obviously a scientific conspiracy aimed at turning everyone on the planet into atheists... even though evolution says nothing about god's nature nor whether he, she, it, or they exist.
Actually you don’t need to be a Christian to understand that Evolution says a lot about any “god” who would use it. Read Dr. Dawkin’s comments here http://creation.com/dawkins-on-compromising-churchians
Natural Selection is actually the most cruel mechanism for the selection of traits imaginable. It is a process by which nothing can improve. Life forms which are not perfectly protected from all environmental hazards are killed off. Those that are killed off prior to procreating are de-selected from the population, leaving only those which the current environmental hazards did not quickly kill.
11.) Because I think the word “theory” actually means: “random stabs in the dark” when it really means: "an explanation of certain phenomena that is well-supported by a large body of facts and often unifies similarly well-supported hypotheses" i.e. atomic theory, gravitational theory, germ theory, cell theory, some-people-are-dumb-************-theory, etc.
Here’s a quote from Creation.com on the subject. While the author’s quoted definition is imprecise and misleading I completely agree with the following quote;
‘Evolution is just a theory.’ What people usually mean when they say this is ‘Evolution is not proven fact, so it should not be promoted dogmatically.’ Therefore people should say that. The problem with using the word ‘theory’ in this case is that scientists usually use it to mean a well-substantiated explanation of data. This includes well-known ones such as Einstein’s Theory of Relativity and Newton’s Theory of Gravity, and lesser-known ones such as the Debye–Hückel Theory of electrolyte solutions and the Deryagin–Landau/Verwey–Overbeek (DLVO) theory of the stability of lyophobic sols, etc. It would be better to say that particles-to-people evolution is an unsubstantiated hypothesis or conjecture.
All the same, the critic doth protest too much. Webster’s Dictionary (1996) provides the #2 meaning as ‘a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact,’ and this usage is hardly unknown in the scientific literature. The dictionary further provides ‘6. contemplation or speculation. 7. guess or conjecture.’ So the critic is simply wrong to say that it’s a mistake to use theory to mean ‘speculation’, ‘conjecture’ or ‘guess’; and that scientists never use theory this way in the literature. So the attack is really cheap point-scoring, but there is still no reason to give critics this diversion.
12.) Because the fact that science is self-correcting annoys me. Most of my other beliefs are rigidly fixed and uncorrectable.
Science is self-correcting. Scientists are people with an agenda, just like everyone else. The only One who doesn’t need to be corrected is the One who “cannot lie”. Have you ever noticed that scientists are always considered absolutely correct when they are appealed to in order to attack a Creationist viewpoint? They never seem to need correcting when they are trying to argue against God. However, when they tell us how gravity works, or what the weather will be like this afternoon they are allowed to be endlessly mistaken. They’ll do better next time. However God cannot lie. If He were accurately shown to have lied then He would be self-disqualified for deity.
The problem for anti-God types is a simple one. Though impossible, it is absolutely simple. Accurately show that the God of the Bible has lied. Arguing from Evolutionary theory or any other man-made idea may be entertaining but it’s the wrong battle. If you want to disprove God, then disprove Him. Making up stories about things that didn’t happen won’t help, because you’re going to have to keep changing your story to keep up with your “self-correcting science.”
Check out the peer-reviewed scientific papers from the 1990’s and tell me that I should be convinced by the peer-reviewed scientific papers of today….. The Scriptures are available for anyone to inspect. They haven’t changed since they were written… so if they are so full of lies then I suppose that someone could point me to them…
13.) Because I am under the severely mistaken impression that evolution implies someone in my very recent ancestry was a chimp.
Does a process that doesn’t work become more effective if it’s given more time? Based on observation it apparently becomes more believable. It’s actually the most effective argument for persuading people to accept Evolution, long ages of time. Time is a smoke screen though, it just plain doesn’t matter how long you give a broken toaster, it’s never going to make toast.
14.) Because everything appears designed to my mind which was expertly tuned by nature to perceive design, probably as a survival mechanism.
The author commits the logical fallacy of reification here by ascribing concrete characteristics to the abstract notion of Nature. Nature is not a personality, it can not “expertly” do anything. In fact it can not “tune” anything either. “Nature” is an abstraction; it is simply the name given to a chain of events in the Universe.
One might wonder how perceiving everything as being designed would work as a survival mechanism using a naturalistic view of the world. However, Romans 1 shows us how our “expertly tuned” ability to recognize design actually is a “survival instinct” for Eternal Life. Rejecting the Designer results in death, being reconciled to Him results in life.
15.) Because some secretly fabulous closet-dwelling televangelist (who unironically preaches hate towards gays) told me that evolution is Satan’s way of leading me away from God.
If a fool told you that the Earth orbits the Sun would he be wrong? Would reality somehow change because a fool spoke the truth? The author commits the logical fallacy of ad hominem by attacking the message giver’s character instead of challenging the validity of the message.
16.) Because that same guy (who was also caught snorting blow off a male hooker’s shiny ***** ***) told me that God planted those fossils to test my faith.
If a fool gives you a false explanation about how (or even why) the Earth orbits the Sun would it then be untrue that the Earth orbits the Sun? Students of the Bible do not have their faith tested by the existence of fossils, they expect to find them in the rock laid down in water all over the world.
17.) Because I’m 100% correct about everything 100% of the time and there is 0% chance that some snooty Oxford educated scientist with numerous honorary doctorates could possibly know something that I don’t.
Biblical Creationists have repented, which by definition is to admit wrong thinking and acceptance of correction. Making up a story and promoting it by means such as the article I’m responding to doesn’t exactly demonstrate a healthy acceptance of correction or even being a teachable person at all.
18.) Because I don’t know that fossils are found in sedimentary strata corresponding to their age as one would expect if evolution were true.
You’re right I didn’t know that. I used to think that, and then I went looking and found it to be untrue. It is amusing to read how newly found fossils force “scientists” to completely re-think their Evolutionary Trees on a monthly basis though.
In actuality fossils are not found in the supposed evolutionary order, or even in the same order around the world. http://creation.com/fossilsdo-they-get-more-complex http://www.trueorigin.org/geocolumn.asp
19.) Because I don’t understand why, if we share common ancestry with chimps, there are still chimps. And when someone with more than three brain cells in their head inevitably replies: “for the same reason Americans share common ancestry with Brits but there are still Brits, I can’t follow the logic. It’s just too big a leap. Who am I, Evil Knievel?
If a fool gives a bad argument for something that is true, does his bad argument make what was true false?
‘If we evolved from apes, why are there still apes today?’ In response to this statement, some evolutionists point out that they don’t believe that we descended from apes, but that apes and humans share a common ancestor. However, the evolutionary paleontologist G.G. Simpson had no time for this ‘pussyfooting’, as he called it. He said, ‘In fact, that earlier ancestor would certainly be called an ape or monkey in popular speech by anyone who saw it. Since the terms ape and monkey are defined by popular usage, man’s ancestors were apes or monkeys (or successively both). It is pusillanimous if not dishonest for an informed investigator to say otherwise.’
However, the main point against this statement is that many evolutionists believe that a small group of creatures split off from the main group and became reproductively isolated from the main large population, and that most change happened in the small group which can lead to allopatric speciation (a geographically isolated population forming a new species). So there’s nothing in evolutionary theory that requires the main group to become extinct.
It’s important to note that allopatric speciation is not the sole property of evolutionists—creationists believe that most human variation occurred after small groups became isolated (but not speciated) at Babel, while Adam and Eve probably had mid-brown skin color. The quoted erroneous statement is analogous to saying ‘If all people groups came from Adam and Eve, then why are mid-brown people still alive today?’
So what’s the difference between the creationist explanation of people groups (‘races’) and the evolutionist explanation of people origins? Answer: the former involves separation of already-existing information and loss of information through mutations; the latter requires the generation of tens of millions of ‘letters’ of new information.
20.) Because my mom dropped me on my head when I was a baby.
21.) Multiple times.
22.) On purpose.
I’m sure there is at least one Creationist who wasn’t dropped on their head as a baby, multiple times. Maybe we could put that question on the next census?
Recently I was linked to an article with the intriguing title ’50 Reasons I Reject Evolution’ as you may well guess my initial thought was that it was a pro-Creation apologetic. What I found instead was a great example of how proponents of the Evolutionary Worldview inflict their thinking on the masses.
Despite the fact that the author demonstrates familiarity with several of the arguments between Evolution and Creation the article focuses on sarcasm and intimidation. To be fair, the work is obviously intended more for the entertainment of readers than convincing those who don’t believe in Evolution. This being recognized it’s also important to recognize the abusive handling of uninformed readers.
There are good scientific arguments going on between the two camps, but most of the people I meet have never even spoken with a scientist or read an actual scientific paper. Most average people are encouraged by the mass media, and people like the author of the article to trust blindly in the peer review process of scientific study, which is of course a process most people do not understand.
Since the author is so convinced, and has a basic ability to write in English I presume she could have attempted to produce a more convincing work. The choice to provide sarcasm instead of fact is telling, but simply noting that the author is acting like a jerk would be about as helpful to my readers as his article is to his. It might entertain a few, but it would be abusive to the majority. So I will attempt a response to each of the article’s 50 reasons. I will respond to groups of reasons as required by their presentation in the article.
Sarcasm and the “everyone who’s smart knows” attitude of some people can be intimidating, especially if you are uninformed. I’d like everyone to be informed on the subject, but I’m not so interested in seeing Christ’s Church filled with “Creation Trekkies.” You don’t need to be a scientist or an expert to refute Evolution. Armed with a reasonable familiarity with the Scriptures, you need only remain calm in the face of ridicule and exercise basic logic.
Hopefully this will help some of you respond to like minded comments from the people you come in contact with. The entire response is 11 printed pages. I'm going to post it in several instalments. Here we go;
1.) Because I don’t like the idea that we came from apes… despite that humans are categorically defined and classified as apes.
The context the author uses the word “categorically” in here means that humans are defined, and classified as apes without condition by those who are deciding the classification. In like manner a person who had never heard of electricity might very well categorically define a light bulb as a magical device.
From the limited perspective of such a person they would be confident to do so. All of their analysis would confirm their stance so long as they did not challenge their understanding. My point is, it doesn’t matter what you call something based on your own knowledge, it is what is. A rose by any other name is a rose all the same, as the saying goes. The world is not flat, no matter what one with no knowledge of the shape of the world might proclaim.
Two facts are most worth noting; Evolutionary theory does not claim Humans descended from Apes and Creationists don’t deny Human descent from Apes because of preference.
2.) Because I’m too stupid and/or lazy to open a ******* science book or turn on the Discovery Science Channel.
The thousands of Creationist scientists with recognized credentials have surely opened science books. It’s doubtful that entertainment television provides authoritative science training. However, there are many people who subscribe to entertainment television channels and become armed with confidence to speak with supposed authority on various subjects.
3.) Because if I can’t immediately understand how something works, then it must be ********.
Beyond feigning ignorance of the Creationist viewpoint, the author commits simple hypocrisy here. Check reaons # 5,6,14,17,20-22,23,24,25,30,31,32,39,45,46,47 and 50 for examples of the author doing what she criticizes here.
4.) Because I don’t care that literally 99.9% of all biologists accept evolution as the unifying theory of biology.
The context of the author’s usage of “literally” here strongly implies the intended thought is that “virtually 99.9%....” This thought would be closer to reality, but also however be pointless. Natural Selection is a helpful concept but ‘molecules to man Evolution’ only confuses those who study Biology.
5.) Because I prefer the idea that a (insert god of choice) went ALLA-KADABRA-ZAM ******-*******!!!
It is pretty much normal for human beings to believe what they want despite evidence to the contrary because we tend to want our preferences confirmed.
I myself, prefer to believe things which are actually true over being a fool. One of the comments in the thread below the article I’m responding to had a very funny thought. The person wrote that Big Bang could not be true because that theory says absolutely nothing existed. Then absolutely nothing exploded. This explosion then spewed out everything, which evolved into me.
I may be getting ahead of myself. If you’ve read ahead you’ll know what I mean. The author, who holds to an Evolutionary Worldview, accuses the Creationists of preferring magic over science. However, the Evolutionary Worldview requires firm belief in some pretty nifty magic, without a source of power for this “magic.” Those who hold to it prefer the idea that the light bulb lights it’s self without any electricity.
6.) Because I can’t get it through my thick logic-proof skull that evolution refers ONLY to the diversity of living organisms which reproduce with genetic variation, not to abiogenesis, or planet formation, or big bang cosmology, or whether God exists, or where they buried Jimmy Hoffa, or why the sky is blue, or how many licks it takes to get to the center of a ******* Tootsie Pop.
Evolution is a pretty loose term. It is used variously as a title for a multitude of concepts. While the author is making a point of mocking Creationists, and Deists, she now defines Evolution using terminology that more closely matches Natural Selection instead of molecules to man Evolution. His point is that there is no Creator God, which is to say the Universe created itself. The views are inseparable and constitute the Evolutionary Worldview.
Not to mention that molecules to man Evolution is completely incompatible with the God described by the Bible.
7.) Because the fossil record doesn’t comprise the remains of every single living thing that ever existed on this 4.5 billion year old planet, even though fossilization is a rare process that only occurs under very specific circumstances.
I wonder if the author could give an explanation as to why she believes the Earth is 4.5 billion years old?
With regard to the Fossil Record, and it’s completeness we can refer to the words written in the Pro-Evolution publication National Geographic “Illuminating but spotty, the fossil record is like a film of evolution from which 999 out of 1,000 frames have been lost.”
Ref: National Geographic Nov. 2004 Page 25 Article: Was Darwin Wrong? No!
So the author is correct to say that the Fossil Record doesn’t include every single living thing that ever existed – no matter how long one supposes the record has been being produced. The record is so incomplete, inconsistent and incompatible with Evolutionary theory as to be completely unhelpful to those who promote the theory.
8.) Because science has yet to produce any transitional species… except for the magnitudinous numbers of them found in the fossil record which don’t count because… I uh, OOH LOOK! A SHINY OBJECT!!! *runs away*
I wonder of the author could point his readers to even one transitional form. In actuality, there are several candidates but they are highly disputable. There have been many hoaxes which, because of the type of thinking presented in the article I’m responding to, have been, and some continue to be taught in schools.
If Evolutionary theory were correct there would be an unending multitude of transitional forms found, both alive and fossilized. However, the real scientific problem with transitional forms is not that we don’t find them; for by chance maybe none were fossilized, and we have such limited ability to study animals that we are missing them all today. The problem is that by no stretch of even an Evolutionary Worldview proponent’s imagination could there have been enough time for the diversity of life that we observe (with our limited perspective even) today to have evolved, even if Natural Selection were able to produce new information.
For an explanation of this please visit the website of one of the people the author complains about; http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/wow/can-natural-processes-explain
9.) Because I know nothing about Darwin except that he had a funny beard.
Darwin himself would never have put up what has become of the theory he adopted, and popularized. http://creation.com/charles-darwins-illegitimate-brainchild If the author, or anyone else would like to read more about Charles Darwin they can visit http://creation.com/charles-darwin-questions-and-answers
10.) Because the theory of evolution (which, according to scientists, perfectly explains the richness and diversity of life on Earth) contradicts biblical literalism… ya know, flat Earth with a firmament that keeps out the water, talking snakes, people rising from the dead, bats are birds, flamey talking bushes, virgin births, food appearing out of nowhere, massive bodies of water turning into blood… etc etc.
I wonder if the author could find a real scientist who would be willing to say that the theory of Evolution perfectly explains the richness and diversity of life on Earth. One glaring imperfection is that the theory of Evolution does not explain how life came to be on Earth in the first place.
I wonder if the author could manage to show anyone who has read the Bible where it says the world is flat? Contrasting what the author claims, the Bible declared that the Earth is a sphere floating in space, rotating on it’s axis and orbiting the Sun which is also moving through the Universe which is expanding and made of things we cannot see… thousands of years before the scientific consensus was that the Earth is flat, and sitting on the back of a turtle. Heb 11:3, Psa 104:2, Job 26:7, Isa 40:22, Job 38:12-14, Psa 19:5-6.
Well that's part 1. I'll see if posting these 10 reasons at a time makes sense.